Canon 70-200 f/2.8 -> Are Junk?

Well, I've been monitoring eBay very closely looking to get a deal on some lenses for my 20D. I have been looking to acquire Canon 70-200 f/4L, and have noticed that people are selling the 70-200 f/2.8 much more than the f/4, almost by a 2-3X factor. All I've heard is great reviews of the f/2.8 but I see so many for sale on eBay relative to the f/4. What gives?

Maybe people are upgrading? The IS is a lot better than the non IS f/2.8. Most people love their f/4's. I know for sure I love mine!

Also, are these mostly people selling the lenses used? Or are you looking at the auctions of power sellers?!?!?! Big difference between the two.

I'm not even going to try to explain people's buying and selling habits, but I will say with certainty that the 70-200 lenses, all 3 versions (and the Sigma also), are very good lenses.

looks like most of the adds for the 2.8s are from dealers - most of the f4 are private sellers. My guess is a lot of people find that shooting ourdoors (you wouldn't buy the f4 for indoor events.. would ya?) that 200 is too short for most sports. It works great for tennis, volleyball and to a lesser extent baseball, but soccer, football, lacrosse..... you get the idea, it's reach is too short. So either they are upgrading to 2.8 so that can shoot in low light... or they are going for a more reaching lens. I doubt it is a quality issue.

For soccer and football, it depends how close on the field you can get. If you can be a foot off the sidelines, the 70-200 f/2.8 is very useable. But regardless, its one of the top 5 lens you can have in your setup. Very versatile.

I think the only downside of the lens might be that it's big, heavy, and much more expensive then the F4.

In actuality he 2.8 is better then the F4, as is the IS over the 2.8. They are designed so similarly that they are not compared based on performance, but rather the need for features.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/70-200is.shtml

I am regularly looking at the 70-200 adverts on eBay (without much hope of convincing my wife anytime soon that I should get one ), and find that most of the 70-200/2.8 are from dealers ... and they always fetch high prices.

To judge from the number of items offered on eBay that a certain item is 'junk' to me doesn't make any sense at all.

Best regards,
Andy

Yea, none of these lenses are junk at all. They all serve their purposes. I love my 70-200 f/4, but of course would KILL for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Because of it's large apeture, and superb IS it's probably one of the best indoor lenses out there.

Whoa, just calm down there Andy. I only named the title that way to draw in people. Yes I know that the f/2.8 is not junk, but the title did make you read this, didn't it.

I often use eBay as a guage of knowing how a product performs. If you see a bunch of the same item being sold, then you know that people are wanting to get rid of it. I had a MUCH harder time finding a Tamron 28-75 than I did a 70-200 f/2.8. Clearly the f/2.8 is a better lens than the Tamron, but yet I see much more 70-200 f/2.8 for sale. That tells me that there are alot of people out there that don't find the lens usefull enough to keep in their bags.

i know what you mean, lots of 2.8s out there being sold off because their owners are getting/have just got an IS version. those with f/4 version have that one because its the cheapest and they can't necessarily afford the 2.8 IS or not... so they're more than happy with their f/4, not a disgruntled 2.8 owner who feels (often wrongly) they need IS desparately. after all its the person behind the lens no the lens its self that determins a good picture.

in the UK 7dayshop.com is selling he f/4 version for a smidge under £400, cheaper than on ebay!

And it worked, this time.

"That tells me that there are alot of people out there that don't find the lens usefull enough to keep in their bags."

No, what that tells you, is there aren't as many people with this lens, probably because they can't afford it. The average amature can't justify spending over $1000 on a lens, but $350 is far more reasonable.

Do you find more porsches or hondas for sale used?

I am on the side that the 2.8 lenses get sold more as they are mainly owned by pros who keep changing / upgrading lens more often than amateurs do. Plus the IS vs no IS would get more people to offer their non-IS 2.8 for sale.

The F4 is a hefty amateur purchase - with no nearby options for an upgrade to a similar lens unless they want to double their investment.

That said, the comparison on Honda vs Porche was not clear. I definitely see more Hondas on sale!! Which would imply more f/4 on sale??

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'